Was Mary Sinless? Fav Arguments

I recently wrote a blog detailing a few of my favorite arguments for the Immaculate Conception. If interested, you can read the post Here:[

Was Mary Born without Sin?](“http://adoroergosum.blogspot.com/2014/01/was-mary-born-without-sin.html”)

I was wondering, what are some of your favorite arguments for this dogma? Which ones have you found to be the most useful when talking to Protestants?

I’m a huge fan of typology as a signpost to such truths, which I see you have there. :thumbsup:

Another one I have on my own blog is the witness of the cherubim angels to Mary’s Immaculate Conception. See How the cherubim witness to Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

It’s not really an argument per se, but my favorate clarification is that Mary was preserved from Original Sin by the grace of God and through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That cuts through a lot of common Protestant misconceptions about Mary and undermines some of their likely objections before they bring them up.

Why don’t you just quote Mary? I think she knows more about her life and what her need was in a Savior. Nothing is ever mentioned about her being sinless, reading anything into the scripture other than what it says is just… I don’t want to go there. It’s the flesh of mankind that makes Jesus approachable, that’s why God had to have flesh, if you were to approach God as they did with the Ark and touch it, you died. All Deity, you touch, you die, All Deity , all Flesh you can approach. All mankind is born of a woman, that is the only requirement. Jesus was born of a woman, who confessed her need of a Savior. Sinless, would make Mary deity, we could have sacrificed her on the cross for mankind and been done with the sin problem. Two perfect sacrifices? Makes no sense to me. Somebody screwed up in the plan of salvation then. He’s not the Perfect God if He has to sinless lives, and kills one and lets the other live. Why did she die? Perhaps, the wages of sin is death?

You have a number of misconceptions about Catholic teaching here. One thing you should know is that Mary’s sinlessness is due entirely by the merit of Jesus Christ, applied to her in advance of her conception. Thus, she needs him as her savior. Catholic teaching is fully consistent with all of Scripture. Just as Eve was created without original sin, so too is Mary. Being created without original sin doesn’t make one a deity, or Adam and Eve would be God’s. Thus, the idea of a Marian sacrifice “instead of” Christ is not Catholic teaching, and does not make sense in light of actual Catholic teaching. I invite you to learn more on this forum and from other Catholic sources that present sound arguments for this theology. :o

Nicely done. Thanks for the article, I haven’t seen the argument presented that way before. :thumbsup:

I also don’t find the doctrine of “Full of Grace” bearing the complete removal of sin in a person who confesses the need of Savior.
Eve was not conceived in sin, as plainly stated in scripture,nor Adam.

For those of us who are particularly dense this morning, would you mind clarifying that? Are you saying that the angelic salutation doesn’t point toward sinlessness b/c Eve was not conceived in sin? Are you implying that someone conceived w/out sin wouldn’t need a savior?

I brought up Eve being created without original sin because you had said if a person didn’t have original sin, they would have to be a “deity,” which does not follow because Eve was not a “deity.”. It is also not beyond the scope of God’s power to “overshadow” Mary with grace and apply the merits of his saving Passion (and yes, only Christ was able to accomplish this) to her as he sees fit. The typological arguments for Mary’s purity are strong in Scripture. From her figure of the Garden, the Ark, the Church “without spot or wrinkle” (Eph. 5:27), as Eve (who was created without original sin herself), etc… And to be true to the typological principle in Scripture, the NT type is always superior to the OT type. The theology is quite sound if you care to enter into it deeply. A forum post can hardly do it justice. You can see articles or books at sites like Ignatius Insight or like Scott Hahn’s Hail, Holy Queen.

To address the Catholic teaching on Marian doctrines, one should properly confront the bases for those doctrines. To avoid addressing the typological, Biblical, and theological bases does not equate to a refute.

all of what i see and hear of Mary doctrine is nowhere in the OT or the NT. From what my Catholic friends tell me it is tradition & church teaching, they don’t say that its any where in Scripture .

That’s because Catholics think some things are true even if they aren’t in the Bible. The Bible doesn’t say everything has to be in the Bible. That idea…is something you’ve added to the Bible. Earlier you said, “reading anything into the scripture other than what it says…I don’t want to go there.” Sounds like you’ve already done that!

all of what i see and hear of Mary doctrine is nowhere in the OT or the NT.

The Marian doctrines are supported by several Scriptural lines of evidence. The opening post of this thread provides some of the Scriptural support for Mary’s sinlessness – now I wonder, where is the Scripture against it?

My favorite argument for Mary’s sinlessness is in the numerous times the Bible praises her sanctity:

Luke 1:28 – “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”

Luke 1:28 – “Blessed are you among women!”

Luke 1:42 – “Blessed are you among women!”

Luke 1:45 – “Blessed is she who believed!”

Luke 1:48 – “All generations will call me blessed.”

Luke 1:49 – “For the Almighty has done great things for me.”

Luke 1:43 – “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

Luke 1:46 – “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my savior!”

Luke 1:48 – “He has regarded the lowly estate of His handmaid.”

Luke 1:30 – “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.”

Luke 1:38 – “I am the handmaid of the Lord, let it be done unto me according to thy Word.”

Luke 2:35 – “And a sword will pierce your own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”

Luke 2:19 – “But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart.”

Luke 2:51 – “And his mother kept all these things in her heart.”

Mark 3:34-35 – “Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

John 2:4 – “Jesus said to her, ‘Dear woman, what is that to me and to thee? My hour has not yet come.’ ”

John 2:5 – “His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells you.’ ”

Did Mary spend nine months in a sinners womb?

Yes. But that didn’t make Mary a sinner.

Couldn’t the same just be said about Jesus then? I don’t understand why this is so important to Catholics.

It is in Scripture largely typologically, as I mentioned above. Your friends may be referring to the absence of a specific sentence that says, “Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin.” But typologically, the dogma is certainly in Scripture, and revealed through Tradition as well.

If it is divinely revealed, then it’s true. We believe divine revelation reveals Mary’s Immaculate Conception as well as Christ’s sinlessness. We also believe it is proper to live by God’s “every word” (cf. Matt. 4:4). The IC points to the divinity of Christ and reflects such OT practices such as the high priest needing to be pure of sin prior to entering the Holy of Holies, which was the “dwelling place” of God, just like Mary. All Marian doctrines are Christological.

It’s important to Catholics because we believe it is a part of divine revelation, i.e. the Word of God in Scripture and Tradition, and we want to hold fast to God’s Word with as much gusto as we can. As to whether the same could be said of Christ, most Catholic apologists seem to say that Christ could have been born of a sinner if He had wanted, but chose not to. I’m not inclined to agree with them because I think that if Jesus’ mother had original sin that would put Jesus in a position where He would have inherited original sin. That would require Him to have been preserved from it by a special grace, which would in effect make Jesus “saved.” It’s fine to have a human like Mary be saved from inheriting original sin; it’s not fine to have that for Jesus. Therefore, I’m inclined to think it was necessary that Mary not have original sin; but I think I’m in the minority as far as that theological speculation goes.

But Jesus wasn’t born at all of natural means, while Mary was. So anything that could be applied to Mary could also be applied to Jesus. “Jesus wouldn’t be in an unclean womb because of sin, but Mary was and yet did not inherit sin either.” I believe it’s a logical fallacy.

Jesus was protected from sin because He was not born the way a human is born. I suppose that, combined with God just doing for Jesus whatever He did for Mary would be sufficient.

Hi Dronald!

First I’d like to point out that as humans we have no right to apply false dichotomies to our Lord’s decisions. That our Blessed Virgin was conceived immaculately has no bearing on how He might go about other things, other than it being in alignment with the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

Logical fallacy indeed! Fortunately, your and my beliefs do not hinge on the credibility of undergrad college arguments.

After all, is it logical that a Man was conceived by the Holy Spirit and dies on a cross to defeat sin and Lucifer?? I think not.

For a Christian movement that bases so much of it’s theology on faith, it comes across as rather hypocritical to attack others for things which are accepted on faith. (never mind supporting typo-logical texts and tradition)

Finally, as one Protestant to another (I am in the process of coming in from the rain) I urge you to examine what is about your Catholic brothers and sisters beliefs regarding Marian doctrine that upsets you. Really examine that, and if your soul is open to Truth, you will not be let down.

I don’t understand the reason for this belief. It could be true, but it’s absent from Scripture so I don’t see how it could be proven.

You gave a good example of “Christ died on a cross” but He also resurrected and won. His victory over death seems logical to me, as well as its attestation in history.

I don’t attack Catholic beliefs or have a problem with them, I just don’t understand how they justify some of them. I’m really asking them to justify their beliefs on an Apologetic forum.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.